(02-12-2014 02:41 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote: I'm open-minded here, but could I rephrase what you wrote as "No miracles can happen, so all miracles in the Bible MUST be metaphors"?

I get your point, I do, and while some people say the gospels are some sort of metaphorical messianic story, by Qumran'ers or other religious thinkers, there is a bias I would point out that underlies that hypothesis.

The other issue that comes to mind--and I'm not trying to fight with you--I'm just spit-balling an idea here, is what is metaphor and what is literal? If all the Bible's miracles are metaphors and not real events, what do we do with the hundreds of people names, place names and dates in the Bible?

The same thing you do with all of the place names in comic books you fucking moron.

If we're talking about air hockey, then yes Hitler most likely won. It is a well documented fact that he was so good he was often referred to as 'Airdolf Hockler', which of course translated from German to English means, 'he who kicks mutha fuckin ass at air hockey'.

(02-12-2014 02:33 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote: It's not a false equivocation, and it would be appreciated if you would address what I said there instead of dismissing it abruptly.

It was addressed; just not in a way that you liked.

(02-12-2014 02:33 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote: As for proving the Bible true, are you talking about verifying dates and place names and etc. which can be done via archaeology and other sciences or about the supernatural elements of scripture?

I'm not talking about that. I don't particularly care whether or not a city named Bethlehem existed. That's neither here nor there when discussing the topic of you not being able to prove that your interpretation of the Bible is the "correct" one.

(02-12-2014 02:33 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote: If the supernatural, I know you know from your own background that the scriptures state in many different verses and books that those who are interested in God or inclined toward God will have God reveal Himself to them in turn.

I'm not saying the Bible doesn't say that. I am saying that it's a non-falsifiable statement and you cannot back it up. It holds as much water as Freud saying that people have repressed memories of their mother treating them poorly. If you agree with him, he's proven right. If you disagree with him, he'll simply say you've repressed the memory. So, when you say that God will reveal himself to me, if I agree, you're right. If I disagree, you just say he hasn't revealed himself yet.

Every bit of supernatural stuff in the Bible is nonfalsifiable. That's the whole reason it's even possible to doubt God exists. It's because he's nonfalsifiable.

So, that being cleared up, I can get back to what I was saying.

As much as you'd like to think you can, you cannot prove your god exists. Given that, your religious beliefs are nonfalsifiable. Other people who say they follow the same religion have different nonfalsifiable beliefs than you. Neither of you can prove your interpretation or beliefs are the "correct" ones. Ergo, neither of you has any more authority or credibility to state that you have the true definition of True Christian.

Now, before you tell me that the Bible says very objective things and you're a Biblical Christian and that's your justification: prove to me that the Bible is meant to be taken literally. No presupposition. No assertions. Prove it.

I don't mind your shifting the goalposts, and in some ways, I welcome it. We've taken NTS pretty far enough already. Indeed, shifting the goalposts is more welcome than the "genius" declarations on the rest of the last few posts of others here. (Why is it that atheists mock Christians when they have nothing substantive to add to a discussion? I know why.)

Anyway, before I also shift the goalposts with my above aside, let me ask, if Bethlehem is a real place, and I say the Bible says it is a real place, is my interpretation right or wrong? Correct or incorrect?

You seem to say "you don't care" meaning you want to jump into verifying the supernatural elements of the Bible. Wouldn't the more obvious approach be to first check out some of the 99% of scripture that is not miracle-related? Once we can verify we have authentic accounts or mostly reliable historical accounts, if you will, (I think they are 100% reliable, of course) we can proceed from there.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.

The only goalpost shifting I've done is when I've taken the time to answer yours. The topic was you trying to weasel out of the NTS fallacy several times and me not letting you off the hook.

You have still to prove that your interpretation of "true" Christin is correct. Please, prove to me the Bible is meant to be taken literally. It's part and parcel to your narrative, but you can't prove that your particular approach is correct, even if you could prove it's Biblical.

(03-12-2014 11:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote: Anyway, before I also shift the goalposts with my above aside, let me ask, if Bethlehem is a real place, and I say the Bible says it is a real place, is my interpretation right or wrong? Correct or incorrect?

(03-12-2014 11:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote: You seem to say "you don't care" meaning you want to jump into verifying the supernatural elements of the Bible. Wouldn't the more obvious approach be to first check out some of the 99% of scripture that is not miracle-related? Once we can verify we have authentic accounts or mostly reliable historical accounts, if you will, (I think they are 100% reliable, of course) we can proceed from there.

Non sequitur. Prove that the Bible is meant to be taken literally. Prove that a Christian who believes a "true Christian" is one who accepts Jesus into their heart is wrong.

The only goalpost shifting I've done is when I've taken the time to answer yours. The topic was you trying to weasel out of the NTS fallacy several times and me not letting you off the hook.

You have still to prove that your interpretation of "true" Christin is correct. Please, prove to me the Bible is meant to be taken literally. It's part and parcel to your narrative, but you can't prove that your particular approach is correct, even if you could prove it's Biblical.

(03-12-2014 11:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote: Anyway, before I also shift the goalposts with my above aside, let me ask, if Bethlehem is a real place, and I say the Bible says it is a real place, is my interpretation right or wrong? Correct or incorrect?

(03-12-2014 11:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote: You seem to say "you don't care" meaning you want to jump into verifying the supernatural elements of the Bible. Wouldn't the more obvious approach be to first check out some of the 99% of scripture that is not miracle-related? Once we can verify we have authentic accounts or mostly reliable historical accounts, if you will, (I think they are 100% reliable, of course) we can proceed from there.

Non sequitur. Prove that the Bible is meant to be taken literally. Prove that a Christian who believes a "true Christian" is one who accepts Jesus into their heart is wrong.

1. It is irrelevant whether the Bible is meant to be taken literally or metaphorically in this instance, only whether we may determine if it can be interpreted accurately. A relativist's worldview does not exclude facts from being facts. I can just as easily say the Bible is a metaphor but that metaphorically, I'm a true Christian and know when others aren't.

2. Why would I attempt to prove that a person who believes a true Christian has a heart for Jesus is wrong? That's exactly what I believe. My original point was that Hitler absolutely showed he didn't have a heart for the biblical, authentic Jesus, and that the Nazis who butchered people in the death camps didn't either. Then again, I'm not wanting to imply that the Nazis in the camps were atheists, either. The reasons why those Nazis who worked in the camps as dissidents to the regime smuggled food to captives, were lenient, helped prisoners escape or get productive work in the camps, etc. was sometimes cited as personal altruism all the way to full-blown Christian faith. I think the worst Nazis were neither atheists nor Christians, but occultists and/or raised in a traditional (dead, devoid of substance and power) Christian faith.

3. If we keep this up much longer, I will remind you that I want to be learning about and from authentic atheists, and I'll ask us to demonstrate that some if not most of the people on this forum are true atheists... and then you can tell me over and again that no one can prove that anyone on this forum is truly an atheist! Let's not go there...

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.

(04-12-2014 11:30 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote: 3. If we keep this up much longer, I will remind you that I want to be learning about and from authentic atheists, and I'll ask us to demonstrate that some if not most of the people on this forum are true atheists... and then you can tell me over and again that no one can prove that anyone on this forum is truly an atheist! Let's not go there...

Let's not because it would be idiotic to do so. We, unlike you, tend not to make the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(04-12-2014 11:30 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote: 3. If we keep this up much longer, I will remind you that I want to be learning about and from authentic atheists, and I'll ask us to demonstrate that some if not most of the people on this forum are true atheists... and then you can tell me over and again that no one can prove that anyone on this forum is truly an atheist! Let's not go there...

Let's not because it would be idiotic to do so. We, unlike you, tend not to make the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Chas, please don't take this personally, but you seem very skilled at finding the things in my posts that threated your position the most and responding only to those things, and rather dismissively.

My point stands tall, still. It would be no less idiotic to discuss whether TTA is composed of real atheists than it is to try to tell me NO person who has ever lived can possibly, concretely determine what a Christian is, and then become one! Or do you want to recreate that stance again using different terms to explain this nonsense proposed by atheists on this thread.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.

(04-12-2014 11:50 AM)Chas Wrote: Let's not because it would be idiotic to do so. We, unlike you, tend not to make the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Chas, please don't take this personally, but you seem very skilled at finding the things in my posts that threated your position the most and responding only to those things, and rather dismissively.

My point stands tall, still. It would be no less idiotic to discuss whether TTA is composed of real atheists than it is to try to tell me NO person who has ever lived can possibly, concretely determine what a Christian is, and then become one! Or do you want to recreate that stance again using different terms to explain this nonsense proposed by atheists on this thread.

Tell us oh wise one, among the 33,000 sects of Jebus' followers, who are "real" and who are not. Nothing you've written so far has "threated" (or even threatened) anyone.

Insufferable know-it-all. It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.